The Middle East remains the epicenter of global attention today. On one hand, there are indications that tensions between Iran and the United States are de-escalating, while on the other hand, Iran has carried out retaliatory strikes in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan by targeting American military bases in the region.
U.S. CENTCOM confirmed strikes on several key installations inside Iran, characterizing them as “defensive operations.” However, at the same time, the situation has taken an extraordinary diplomatic turn.
U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday dismissed the impression that the United States had made major concessions in any agreement with Iran, while a senior U.S. official described the emerging deal as “performance-based,” stressing that Iran would not be granted access to frozen assets until it honors its obligations under the agreement.
In a statement issued on his social media platform “Truth Social,” Trump said that the purported comments emerging from Iran regarding the proposed agreement with the United States do not faithfully reflect the written agreement that has been hammered out between the two sides. Every time a deal appears close, it then slips away again, and this time it can be expected that due to the constraints facing both parties, the deal may be finalized soon.
Earlier, President Donald Trump had announced that the proposed attacks on Iran scheduled for a third consecutive night had been canceled because negotiations with Tehran had reached a stage where a mutual agreement appeared possible, and there was even a strong possibility that it could be signed within the same week. At the same time, it was being said that discussions had not only reached Iran’s top leadership but that the “final points” of the agreement were in the last moments of approval by both parties. However, Netanyahu stated that he is not a party to this deal.
This announcement was in complete contrast to the stern warning issued just hours earlier, in which Trump had warned Iran of “very severe” attacks and threatened to target Kharg Island and other oil facilities. Recently, Iranian media reported that clashes between Iran and the United States had resumed in the Strait of Hormuz region, which at first glance gave the impression that the flames of war in the region would once again erupt with full intensity.
However, reality proved different, and current circumstances indicate that limited retaliatory actions have become a political and military necessity for both countries. Whenever one side launches an attack or violates a ceasefire, it is considered unavoidable for the other side to respond. One major reason for this is domestic politics and public perception, and the governments of both countries want to convey to their populations that they will not compromise on national security. This is why limited military operations often continue even when diplomatic contacts remain active behind the scenes.
A notable shift has also been observed in President Donald Trump’s recent policy. According to global security expert Richard Weitz, Trump adopted an “escalate to de-escalate” strategy, aimed at achieving diplomatic progress through pressure. However, he also warned that it is still unclear what exactly has been agreed upon between the parties and how it will be implemented.
In this context, another important aspect is that, according to observers in Washington, Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu share a common position on limiting Iran’s nuclear program. However, concern is growing within the White House that Netanyahu may disrupt diplomatic efforts, which is why the Trump administration is urging him to allow time for negotiations.
According to Iranian media, a senior official in Tehran has also confirmed that Iran’s top leadership is considering the proposed memorandum of understanding with the United States. Media reports suggest that if an agreement is reached, Iran may present it as a major diplomatic success.
Among the Iranian public, a narrative is also emerging that although the war created difficulties, a potential agreement could bring prospects such as sanctions relief and the restoration of frozen assets, which could signal development and prosperity for Iran. Government circles are presenting it as a “stronger position in exchange for sacrifices.”
Other countries in the region have also been directly affected by Iran-U.S. tensions. Recently, Kuwait temporarily closed its airspace as a precautionary measure and diverted flights to other airports, while the U.S. Embassy in Jordan issued instructions for citizens to move to safe locations.
Meanwhile, the situation on the Lebanon-Israel border also remained tense. Hezbollah claimed that it carried out a total of 24 operations between Wednesday and Thursday, including drone, missile, and rocket attacks on Israeli military targets, striking Israeli forces in various areas of southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley.
This situation indicates that although military tensions persist, diplomatic channels have simultaneously become active. For the United States, a new major war could prove politically and economically costly, while Iran also cannot afford a prolonged conflict. Therefore, the current trend suggests that limited strikes and harsh statements are actually tactics to increase pressure before negotiations, rather than steps toward a full-scale war.
In this context, Pakistan’s potential mediation is also gaining importance, as Pakistan has previously played diplomatic roles in regional disputes and, if the parties are willing, Islamabad could once again facilitate the negotiation process. If, through Pakistan’s mediation, a ceasefire between Iran and the United States is successfully established, it could not only help resolve several of Pakistan’s own economic problems but also open new avenues for development and prosperity, something that global observers also appear to be pointing toward.
The question is: when will these tensions between Iran and the United States transform into a permanent ceasefire, and when will this cycle of bloodshed and destruction come to an end? Only time can provide the answer.
Translated by: M.M. News Editorial Team
